FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARY IMMACULATE COLLEGE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rerun of interview for contract conversion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the composition of an interview board for a permanent post in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the College. In May, 2001, the College, following representations from the Union, agreed that a number of people who had been on fixed-term contracts for a substantial period should have their contracts converted into permanent ones. This was to be done by way of interview. One of six persons interviewed (the worker concerned) was not recommended for permanency and she was informed of this on the 3rd of July, 2001. At that time she was on a 3-year contract due to end in August, 2002, and was paid at the Assistant Lecturer scale. The worker, believing that she should have been made permanent, contacted her Union, which in turn wrote to the College.
The interview board was made up of a Chairperson - nominated by the President of the College who was unable to chair the interview himself - two people appointed by the President of the College and two people nominated by the University of Limerick. In September, 2002, the Union wrote to the College requesting a rerun of the interview. The College agreed to this but emphasised that the process would be run in accordance with normal academic procedures. The Union, however, was seeking a completely new interview panel. The College's position was that the two people from the College i.e. the Co-ordinating Head of Arts Department and the Head of Department of Theology and Religion, both of whom were on the original interview board in 2001, would also be on the new board.
As the parties could not reach agreement, the Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 27th of January, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of April, 2004, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Given her academic and employment record,the worker was very upset and puzzled by the interview results, particularly in comparison to other persons made permanent. (The Union supplied a list of the worker's qualifications to the Court).
2. The Union is not trying to change or vet the way interview boards are chosen by the College. It is seeking a one-off interview because of the circumstances of this case. It is hoped that this will provide a fresh interview situation which would rule out any emotional stress for the worker linked to the original interview.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College believes that it is within its rights to determine the composition of an interview board. The College has clearly informed the Union of the procedures to be followed.
2. It is clearly not a sustainable position that the Head of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and the Co-Ordinating Head of the Arts Department would be excluded from the interview panel. The College is willing to have three new members on the panel.
3. In September, 2002, the worker's contract was extended to 31st of August, 2007, - from 31st of August, 2005, - as she would reach the normal retirement age of 65 in the academic year 2006/2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
The offer made to the Union by the College was for a re-run of the interview process"in accordance with the normal academic procedures".The College is of the view it is within its rights to determine the composition of the Interview Board.
However, the College has, in response to the representations made in this case, agreed that three members of the Interview Board would be new to the process but that the Head of Department and the Co-ordinating Head of the Arts Department must be on the Interview Board.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, finds the College stance in this case to be reasonable taking all the circumstances into account.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.